As the material was analysed, five categories emerged. Clinical challenges were expressed in relation to 1) various ways of understanding prolonged labour, 2) assessing progress in labour, 3) monitoring foetal heart rate, 4) appropriate intervention at the appropriate time and 5) working as a team. Structural challenges of staff shortage, lack of equipment and available operation theatres, were obvious in our material, but excluded from our study because it was not within our scope of analysis.
Various ways of understanding prolonged labour
The respondents expressed some variations in expected duration of a labour. Respondents at both hospitals understood prolonged labour as going beyond “expected hours”. Respondents described the partograph as essential in diagnosing prolonged labour. In the regional hospital, many respondents operated with a timeframe of twelve hours. As one doctor put it;
It is labour that goes beyond its usual time which is maximum allowed without having delivered. Let us say twelve hours, beyond that then it is prolonged labour. (Doctor, RRH)
At the zonal hospital, the expected duration of the active phase for nulliparas ranged from eight to twenty-four hours. Respondents in both hospitals differentiated between primiparous and multiparous women for both first and second stage of labour. Concerning the second phase of labour, nurse-midwives expected it to last no more than twenty minutes to one hour.
Identifying the cause of prolonged labour was expressed as essential by the respondents. They related the cause to four P’s, as described by a nurse-midwife in the regional hospital:
The first I will check for is power, then passage, then passenger and finally psychology. (…) If it is passenger and passage, it means the baby cannot come out; I will then decide, maybe I will call the doctor to do a CS. (Nurse-midwife, RRH)
Malposition, poor contractions, lack of energy, intact membranes and cervical dystocia were mentioned as causes of prolonged labour, and cephalopelvic disproportion (CPD) was referred to as the most central cause among the respondents. This leads to three terms described explicitly and implicitly throughout the material; prolonged labour, poor progress in labour and obstructed labour. Poor progress was described as an early stage of prolonged labour, but also as an indication for emergency CS, as expressed by this nurse-midwife:
According to my opinion the management of poor progress and prolonged labour are similar, for example in case of prolonged labour I have to establish the causative factor and the management will go from there. But in poor progress, in my management I will directly prepare her for CS, although I will check for causes, but we should go for CS. (Nurse-midwife, ZCUH)
Several nurse-midwives associated prolonged labour with severe findings of dry vaginas and restless, febrile mothers. One doctor described a spontaneous vaginal birth as a reason to abandon the diagnose of prolonged labour;
[…] I will give her more time, but sometimes we succeed and after some time the mother delivers, you can see it is not prolonged labour. (Doctor, RRH)
Descriptions of poor progress, prolonged labour and obstructed labour, varied greatly among the respondents. The usage of the three terms was often overlapping and at other times, contradictory. Absence of progress was labelled poor progress by some, and prolonged labour by others. A respondent from the zonal hospital said that they often encounter poor progress, but stated that prolonged labour usually was referred from other hospitals involving poor outcomes for mother and child. Prolonged labour is also said to cause obstructed labour. Some respondents explicitly addressed confusion among the terms poor progress and prolonged labour. The term “early prolonged labour” (in the latent phase) was also used.
Assessing progress in labour
The respondents expressed great confidence in the partograph – as a guide, indicating time for intervention, avoiding prolonged labour and helping to prevent poor outcomes. A nurse-midwife in the zonal hospital said:
Partograph is the first, this is the important tool which I use to know prolonged labour, because it shows from when the mother enters active phase, it shows how contraction goes, it shows foetal heart rate, it shows everything. So, the partograph is a tool we depend on very much and have confidence in. (Nurse-midwife, ZCUH)
All groups emphasized the importance of filling the partograph properly. Some nurse-midwives expressed a wish for training on the use of the partograph. A nurse-midwife in the regional hospital said that even though they know how to fill out the partograph, often it is not done properly. Some doctors implied that nurse-midwives sometimes filled the partograph in a way that it did not indicate prolonged labour. Both doctors and nurse-midwives reflected on how an erroneous first plot in the partograph may wrongly indicate prolonged labour. Nurse-midwives expressed uncertainty in establishing the start of active labour. Referral cases provided additional challenges due to undocumented anamnesis. Despite their confidence in the partograph, doctors at the zonal hospital reported that the partograph occasionally forced them to intervene. According to their experience, they sometimes avoided CS by not following the indications of the partograph. Nurse-midwives also experienced the partograph as having a narrow normal range, not fitting to all.
In assessing prolonged labour, nurse-midwives described vaginal examination and abdominal palpation as a challenge and advocated for training. Especially concerning the measurement and documentation of descent, there was a mixture of terms. The respondents used the terms level, descent and station and were explicit about the lack of common understanding of their differences and similarities; as this nurse-midwife in the regional hospital said:
In measuring spine level, it is a problem […] even in interpreting, when you mix interpreting engagement and then comes station, you mix it with level. You have to think twice, which one do you write down? It is zero in spine level but where is it? In plus one, plus to or more? Where is plus two? Where is minus two? It is a problem altogether. (Nurse-midwife, RRH)
Nurse-midwives also explained how different finger sizes would lead to considerable differences in cervical dilation measurements. In the zonal hospital nurse-midwives found it challenging that inexperienced doctors sometimes lacked skills in cervical dilation measurement.
Acknowledging malposition as a cause of prolonged labour, nurse-midwives in both hospitals regarded it as important, however challenging, to determine the child’s position and presentation during birth. In detecting malposition, respondents also described pain as an indicator. Furthermore, severe pain, lack of pain and unexpected pain made the respondents alert to complications like uterine rupture. Detecting the cause of pain was found to be challenging but essential, as expressed by a doctor in the regional hospital:
“Why so much pain? […] I will go and find out why, why, why” (Doctor, RRH)
The respondents described how different expressions of pain influenced how they intervened, sometimes resulting in unnecessary interventions.
Appropriate intervention at the appropriate time
“We must take action” was a frequently used phrase among the nurse-midwives, often synonymous with CS. Respondents said that action must be taken when vaginal birth was not regarded as possible, there was a lack of progress for some time, the child was too big or if the “partograph said so”. A nurse-midwife in the regional hospital described it this way:
If you use the partograph well, you can know if the things are going well or not, so you can take action. If it is a big baby that definitely cannot come out in a normal way, you must take action as early as possible. (Nurse-midwife, RRH)
Furthermore, nurse-midwives described how women asked for CS after being in labour for a long period. Allegedly, some women were told that if they cried and made a lot of noise, the doctor would take them for operation. However, doctors in both hospitals said that without danger signs, they would not perform a CS solely on request from labouring women. Some doctors said that the fear of performing vacuum extraction was prominent among doctors, leading to an underuse of the procedure.
The respondents mentioned some referral cases where there was said to be prolonged labour and the partograph indicated CS, and still the membranes were not ruptured. When artificial rupture of the membranes (ARM) was performed, the women gave birth. One doctor expressed frustration with guidelines that may indicate early interventions and CS when unnecessary:
[…] we discuss the difficulty at hand but at the end of the day if I follow my decisions, I find I have helped the mother to have her baby normally; I have not followed guideline. (Doctor, ZCUH)
However, for referral cases presenting with dry vagina of high temperature and with the child’s head high – the respondents found that vaginal birth was unlikely to take place.
Regarding oxytocin, respondents agreed that it should not be administered too early, and that there should be normal foetal heart rate (FHR) in advance. A nurse-midwife at the zonal hospital said that the FHR should be monitored “most of the time” when a labouring woman is augmented with oxytocin. The nurse-midwives reported that labouring women themselves requested oxytocin to shorten labour. Unnecessary induction and inaccurate administration of oxytocin were reported as causes of prolonged labour among the respondents at both hospitals. They expressed a challenge related to the practical administration of oxytocin – whether or not the valve was sufficiently opened. A doctor in the zonal hospital explained it as follows:
´(…) you will find oxytocin dripping but there is no change in the situation of the mother. It is you who have made the decision of applying oxytocin while she had mild contractions and you have not opened the valve for oxytocin enough for the mother to have strong contractions. (Doctor, ZCUH)
The nurse-midwives expressed a need for guidelines regarding the use of oxytocin augmentation as well as when ARM should be performed. Some said that experience had taught them that performing ARM too early would result in prolonged labour, whereas delayed ARM may prevent it. When discussing ARM, nurse-midwives expressed fear of endangering the child by cord prolapse or increased risk of infection, especially transmission of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).
Discussing the timing for interventions, nurse-midwives addressed the right time for admission to the labour ward. They said that too early admittance may result in misdiagnosed prolonged labour and lead to the mother feeling poorly treated. Too late admittance, as for many referral cases due to repeated delays, made them anxious for both mother and child. A nurse-midwife in the zonal hospital said:
If prolonged labour happens far away in the rural areas, it takes time to diagnose and to organise. To transport the patient takes time as well. By the time she reaches here, she is tired and also the baby is tired. (Nurse-midwife, ZCUH)
Monitoring foetal heart rate
Respondents from both hospitals conveyed challenges related to finding and interpreting foetal heart rate (FHR). Differentiating foetal heart rate from the maternal was found to be difficult, as explained by a nurse-midwife in the regional hospital:
It is possible you have listened, but you listened to the maternal heartbeat. You can say there is foetal heartbeat, but if you have not incorporated your colleague or you have not asked the mother if the baby is kicking inside and confirmed it with ultrasound - at the end of the day you come up with such results [stillborn/macerated]. (Nurse-midwife, RRH)
Several nurse-midwives mentioned incidences where there was said to be FHR, but the child was stillborn. They understood FHR as of either low, normal or high frequency, and with strong or weak sound. A nurse-midwife described continuous monitoring as listening to the FHR every half hour. Obese or non-cooperative mothers and cases of malpositioned children, represented additional challenges in finding FHR. Some respondents described that they faced no challenges related to the interpretation of FHR, only difficulties in monitoring. Difficulties were closely related to distrust in all available foetal monitoring equipment, as explained by a nurse-midwife in the zonal hospital:
[…] there is no answer which I can precisely give if I can rely on either pinard, foetal scope, doppler or even ultrasound - all has its challenges. We have an experience of being told there is foetal heartbeat but on delivery you get a fresh stillbirth. (Nurse-midwife, ZCUH)
Nurse-midwives described how dopplers might give faulty readings and mislead them in their work, resulting in children with surprisingly low score at birth. Nurse-midwives also reported that poor knowledge on the utilisation of the equipment was a problem.
Working as a team
Within the team of respondents, the perception of urgency varied. Teamwork was perceived as challenging when the doctor gave the labouring women time but forgot to follow up or “gave time” repeatedly. Nurse-midwives in the regional hospital described how doctors gave the labour more time although they were informed that FHR was negatively affected, as this nurse-midwife explained:
I am the one who knows the patient, I stay with the patient, maybe I have already taken one or two actions. Maybe FHR is 100 or 90 and I can see it is in distress and contractions has slowed down and child cannot come out. I have called the doctor who says we should give her another one hour. Personally, I will tell the doctor […] it is not possible to give mother another one hour. (Nurse-midwife, RRH)
The doctors said that they only gave time if no danger signs were present for mother or child. They described being available after allowing additional time as a necessity.
Teamwork seemed to be challenged by a mutual distrust between experienced nurse-midwives and inexperienced doctors. In decision-making, doctors were sometimes bypassed if the nurse-midwife did not agree with the decisions made. Nurse-midwives described this bypassing as a way of advocating for the women and children when they felt their conditions were not taken seriously. They argued that increased independence for nurse-midwives, especially when managing uncomplicated labours, would benefit the childbearing women. At the same time, they described fear of being accused of wrongdoing. When fearful of a poor outcome, they put effort into documenting the dialogue with the doctor to minimize the risk of blame.